Van Krkachovski

The defendant municipality brought a motion seeking an order that the third-party insurer defend it against all claims made by the plaintiffs arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident during a snowstorm.

The municipality argued the claims pertained to winter maintenance, for which it was an additional insured under the contractor's policy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs pleaded independent claims against the municipality, such as negligent road design, which fell outside the scope of the insurance policy.

The insurer was only required to defend the municipality with respect to claims insured for the contractor.

In a personal injury action arising from a multi‑vehicle rear‑end collision, third parties sought summary judgment dismissing the third‑party claim and cross‑claims against them.

The moving parties argued that the rear‑ending driver’s negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and relied on the so‑called “clear line” doctrine to argue their conduct could not have contributed to the collision.

The defendants and another third party argued that the driver who stopped in a live lane of traffic may have breached duties under the Highway Traffic Act and that factual disputes existed regarding traffic conditions, visibility of hazard lights, and whether the vehicle was disabled.

Applying the modern summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court held that credibility disputes and complex issues of causation and negligence required a trial.

The court further noted that the “clear line” doctrine could not displace the modern “but for” causation analysis.